i played this game hard for a while, but there were so many CTD progress reverting bugs that it finally killed my enthusiasm for it.

Custom printed.

The front rack grills, keystone panels and thinkcentre mounts are from a website but all the other printed parts are custom.

i’m not utilising it nearly as much as i should which is why i haven’t gotten around to the failover cluster yet.

a bunch of ebay specials with more ebay parts scavenged over time + some 3d printing.

The centre tower has a miniitx mb and PSU behind those panels to run the NAS, and the drive bays are in the bottom.

The right is a failover cluster that isn’t finished yet.

Consistently insightful, no needless words, astounding.

Masterful

See, no relevance to the response required.

It doesn’t even need to make sense.

Still devastating in it’s efficacy.

I’ll look into a way to archive Lemmy threads so that future generations might benefit from access to the raw brilliance.

Rather than some paraphrased anecdote.

Wordy, still stupid

See , this is why i had no chance from the beginning.

Simple, concise, cutting.

You don’t even need to understand what i said because your retorts don’t require it. Genius.

The answer is generic …which means it can be applied to the specific circumstance.

Here is an example, as the answer to your question :

this man has 12 years experience as a board member. Would he not have the qualifications to perform the job?

Going by the example evaluation steps i provided, he would have the qualifications to perform the job , if:

• The success criteria for the position were known
• His history/skillset/experience/future prospects were likely to meet or exceed those criteria

If you want to know if he’s the most qualified for the job you also need to:

• Rank all the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.

and he would need to be at the top of the rankings.

If you’re going to ask who does these evaluations in the specific example being talked about, it would be the voters, perhaps a final approval board as well, if one exists in these scenarios.

Outside of that example, it can vary.

I shouldn’t have to but I’m going to point out that i said this is a simple quotable answer, not that it was the only answer, or even the best answer.

My argument has always been that evaluation of fitness for a role isn’t impossible. Not that there is a perfect method, nor that these methods are being used competently or at all. Just that they do exist.

As for personal opinion, this guy sounds like an asshole, i personally know lots of incompetent people in positions they neither earned nor are qualified for, I’m not saying the current state of things is good, because i don’t think it is.

My respect for your opinion is such that your lack of belief in me is a wound that will take much time to heal.

Indeed, this thorough trouncing has really put things into perspective for me.

From your post history there are so many wins I’m surprised i lasted as long as i did.

I should really research before i try and take on the champ.

indeed, your witty repartee and peerless argumentative structure have left me nowhere to hide, conversationally speaking.

Even the animated equivalent of a “no u” was a masterstroke, perfectly timed to wound me.

I am bested.

And again, as I said ,all of that was In response to specific context.

Amongst all of the other replies that you’ve conveniently ignored.

Taking quotes from a specific context and pretending they apply overall is poor reasoning. Again congrats on the consistency.

I suspect you aren’t going to understand what I mean though (intentionally probably, but possibly just struggling).

Tell you what, you win, congrats on your intellectual triumph, a victory truly earned.

A masterful retort.

Still not what I said, but at least you’re consistent, if not interesting.

You can put new people on the ISS, fucking duh, and it’s still much lower risk than a moon mission. Not zero risk, just significantly lower risk for the same results, as I already said.

If you’ll go back and read what i said i was responding directly to the quote :

You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.

The difference between zero and low gravity is not subjective.

Agreed, It’s a good job that isn’t what i was claiming then, “The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless” is subjective.

“Justifications exist for this course of action even if they’re stupid” is a bad argument to make and you should stop making it,

Not what i said originally , it’s in the chat history, please try harder.

I’ll put down the sentence you wrote, and my response to it.

There is literally zero reason for us to put people in space when we can send drones to do it.

response

There are several reasons to put actual people in to space.

They might be reasons you think worth it, but they do exist.

The follow up :

Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.

Doesn’t imply the reasons are bad, just that they are irrelevant.

if you know you’re not qualified to evaluate the validity of those justifications then quit trying

If you think qualifications are required for statements clearly stated as opinions then feel free to provide yours.

Also, not what i said, you should really read the comments properly before responding to them, if you incorrectly paraphrase text that is easily accessible if makes you look incompetent.

Not directly referencing the text you are paraphrasing because it wouldn’t help your pseudo argument if you did, is also a weak move.

If you’re asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don’t know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.

a bit further down is :

I don’t know enough to be certain about any of that though.

and that has a specific context attached to it, arguing against a point while pretending the clearly established context doesn’t exist is also not a good look.

This is somewhat disappointing, at least come up with something that will hold up to more than 10 seconds of scrutiny.

All of what you said is reasonable at a glance, still it’s not relevant to my argument.

Reasons exist.

Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.

If you’re asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don’t know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.

What i will do is put down my uneducated answers to your response.

You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.

Increasing output of existing members is unlikely to be equivalent to data from entirely new test subjects.

40% more data on existing subjects isn’t the same as 40% additional data from new subjects.

For a more equal comparison you’d need to ship new people to the ISS and then your argument would only be true if there was zero risk of death in getting new people to the ISS.

The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless, instead of zero gravity they’re just in low gravity, which we can achieve without even going to the ISS, low orbit would do the trick with even lower risk.

That’s subjective but you could be right, i’d possibly argue that the combination of factors in space in addition to the low gravity would be different than a terrestrial equivalent, so a low gravity experiment in the ISS might be a better comparison.

I don’t know enough to be certain about any of that though.

This is a publicity stunt to compensate for the US looking like a fucking joke, extra risk for no extra benefit beyond showing off.

Possibly, i’d guess likely, but again i don’t know enough to have a reasonable opinion on this.

From the rest of this thread i get the impression you’ll appreciate this…so…

Whom is lying now?

Pretty sure that would be a who rather than a whom.

Carry on though…

Perhaps the argument that it isn’t possible to assess merit for a job position is so far outside the realms of reason that asking for clarification is the only way to formulate an answer.

But if you want a simple, quotable answer for the obvious question as it is written, here you go:

• Asses the criteria for which a job would be considered to be successfully performed.
• Check if historical evidence/experience/current skill/expected future growth gives indication that the candidate could meet or exceed those criteria.
• Rank the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.
• ???
• Profit?

It’s tremendously disappointing to see people act like assessing fitness for a role isn’t a thing that has been going on since the dawn of civilisation.

Get a grip.

Now, if you want argue that this isn’t how things are currently done ? I’m right there with you.

The system is a shambolic remnant of what it should be ? couldn’t agree more.

A lot of it is probably by design ? sure, i’m down for that perspective.

But “It isn’t possible to assess merit for a job role”, is a troll at best or extreme ignorance at worst.

If people weren’t asking “are you sure that this is what you meant?” i’d be worried for the state of basic reasoning.

Indeed, no scientific studies could ever benefit from a 40% increase in data from test subjects.

Not to mention they aren’t even in the same environmental conditions, or doing the same activities, the data would be completely different (aside from the common baseline of space stuff) and therefore useless for comparison purposes.

I’m not sure why anyone would bother.

Look, i get why you might think it’s unnecessary, i don’t care enough to have an my own opinion on it’s cost/benefit analysis.

All i was saying is that reasons do exist.